On Fri Feb 22 19:38:42 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Friday 22 February 2008 19:33:12 James Keenan via RT wrote: > > > Alas! It is once again failing as of r25999. > > Did it work at r25997? I think Andy keeps reverting the fix. >
I should have spoken more precisely. The revision at which I *noticed* the failure was 25998. I've begun a binary search to determine at which revision the failure actually occurred again. The test passed at 25900. kid51
